[CQ-Contest] Allowing self-spotting

Sun Feb 26 08:00:15 EST 2017

Good.
I hope the World of contest judging would be so simple.
There is more.

Next question we see in the Pandora's box:

HE4RME complains on CQ-Contest reflector:
I called CQ on Internet Protocol.
I was asked on internet protocol if I heard CQ0IP calling me.
CQ0IP himself was asking.

I have CQ0IP in my contest log submission and also CQ0IP has me on his log
submission.
CQ0IP wrote a frequency on his message so I QSYed there and I was there.
But the evidence the contest committee presents as a true recording on the
band shows there was no actual radio contact.
How can the committee say there was no radio contact?
We both were transmitting each others' calls on the same frequency!
Why are we penalized for our activity?

I hope this clarifies the opening gray line to all.

73,
Jukka OH6LI

2017-02-26 14:30 GMT+02:00 Helmut Mueller <helmut at photo42.de>:

> I don't see the Problem.
>
> Unassisted = NOT Cluster = No Spots = No Selfspots
> Assisted = Allow self spotting
>
> 73
>
>   Helmut DF7ZS
>
>
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] Im Auftrag von
> Jukka Klemola
> Gesendet: Sunday, 26 February, 2017 10:51 AM
> An: Joe <nss at mwt.net>
> Cc: cq-contest <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Betreff: Re: [CQ-Contest] Allowing self-spotting
>
> Sirs,
> I have difficulties following this discussion.
>
> There are people selling the idea to allow self-spotting.
>
>
> Which way are we going:
> -allowing CQ calling on internet
> -keeping the un-assisted category
>
> .. or are we developing extreme double.standard or what is going on?
>
>
> A glimpse into the Pandora's box we are now cranking open:
> Is a station using CQoIP but claims not using spotting data, is such
> entrant
> un-assisted?
>
>
> 73,
> Jukka OH6LI
>
>
>
> 2017-02-26 3:04 GMT+02:00 Joe <nss at mwt.net>:
>
> > I also like this self spotting.
> >
> > BUT.....  and there always is a BUT isn't there? I like the three
> > QSO's rule, BUT.  there needs to also be a max per hour?
> >
> > Then gain here we are, back to the same problem, UG!
> >
> > I can just see someone spotting themself after every q.
> >
> > Joe WB9SBD
> > Sig
> > The Original Rolling Ball Clock
> > Idle Tyme
> > Idle-Tyme.com
> > http://www.idle-tyme.com
> > On 2/24/2017 4:30 PM, Stan Stockton wrote:
> >
> >> Yes.  This is what I wrote about a year and a half ago:
> >>
> >> 2015-10-28 4:06 GMT+01:00 Stan Stockton <wa5rtg at gmail.com>:
> >> There should be a rule allowing the software to automatically submit
> >> a self spot after you have logged perhaps three QSOs on the same
> >> frequency - same rule for everyone. After all, when you call CQ on CW
> >> you are, in effect, self spotting. There is a huge advantage in being
> >> spotted and, on SSB, there is a huge difference in the number of
> >> spots for different stations giving advantage to those who are
> >> spotted frequently and quickly after a frequency change. 73... Stan,
> >> K5GO
> >>
> >>
> >> On Feb 24, 2017, at 9:49 AM, Steve London <n2icarrl at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On CW, we already have the equivalent of self spotting, thanks to CW
> >>> Skimmer and the RBN. It's virtually impossible to NOT be spotted. CW
> >>> Skimmer/RBN is the great equalizer - you no longer have to depend on
> >>> a network of friends to spot you.
> >>>
> >>> We wouldn't be having this discussion if there was a SSB Skimmer.
> >>> Right now, we have a system where "those with the right friends"
> >>> have an advantage. Why not simply allow self spotting on SSB ?
> >>>
> >>> 73,
> >>> Steve, N2IC
> >>>
> >>> On 02/22/2017 12:22 PM, Bob Henderson wrote:
> >>>> Having myself met with unfair and unjustified treatment at the
> >>>> hands of RDXC adjudicators I can empathise with those claiming
> >>>> unfair treatment in adjudication.  However in this case having
> >>>> looked at the information supplied and done a little further
> >>>> digging, I am unsure my empathy is justified.
> >>>>
> >>>> 3V8SS it seems acknowledges cheer-leading by his fellow Tunisians
> >>>> KG5OUE and F4HJD but claims not to have encouraged it.  I am
> >>>> inclined to believe him, given some of my own friends have spotted
> >>>> me during contests and I have NEVER, that is NOT EVER, asked anyone
> >>>> to do so.
> >>>>
> >>>> That said, HB9EOU appears to be rather more than a random contact
> >>>> with Switzerland.  Last year HB9EOU operated in the IOTA contest
> >>>> from 3V8SM on Djerba Island AF-083 along with F4HJD.  Ash (3V8SS) +
> >>>> F4HJD + 3V8CB had activated 3V8SM from Djerba Island a couple of
> >>>> months earlier.
> >>>>
> >>>> The recording of the contact with HB9EOU seems odd, though the
> >>>> events not entirely inexplicable but small circles in which the
> >>>> same calls crop up repetitively raise questions.  Perhaps it's all
> >>>> an extraordinary coincidence but there is enough doubt for me to
> >>>> wonder whether my empathy might have been misplaced.
> >>>>
> >>>> Bob, 5B4AGN
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 09:48:33 -0600
> >>>> From: "Doug Renwick" <ve5ra at sasktel.net>
> >>>> To: "'Ashraf Chaabane'" <ash.kf5eyy at gmail.com>, "'cq-contest'"
> >>>>          <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> >>>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] R: Re: R: 3V8SS disqualified from WW SSB and
> >>>>          WRTC
> >>>> Message-ID: <E976655BE7DB448B8806659C02036C2C at DOUG8PC>
> >>>> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="us-ascii"
> >>>>
> >>>> After reading your post and based on your response to the
> >>>> committee, I would conclude that Bob, W5OV; Doug, KR2Q; Scott, W4PA
> >>>> are nitpickers with an agenda.
> >>>> If anything valid is further introduced to support the committee's
> >>>> decision, then I would revise my opinion. As it stands, I believe
> >>>> you were unfairly DQd.
> >>>> Doug
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On
> >>>> Behalf Of Ashraf Chaabane
> >>>> Sent: February-22-17 7:34 AM
> >>>> To: cq-contest
> >>>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] R: Re: R: 3V8SS disqualified from WW SSB
> >>>> and WRTC
> >>>>
> >>>> Mike, Ria and all,
> >>>>
> >>>> I put online the CC accusations (their native emails) and my
> responses:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.kf5eyy.info/3V8SS_WWSSB16_DQ.htm
> >>>>
> >>>> I think that allows everyone to read from both sides. Now it's up
> >>>> to you to comment!
> >>>>
> >>>> 73
> >>>> --
> >>>> Ash ~ 3V8SS/KF5EYY
> >>>> http://www.kf5eyy.info/
> >>>> Phone/SMS: (+216) 22670026
> >>>> Skype: kf5eyy
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
> >>>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> >>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >>>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> CQ-Contest mailing list
> >>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> >>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> CQ-Contest mailing list
> >> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> >> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>